Dr. Bill Craig's Debates: Why do Atheists lose/run away from debating him?

[Peebothuhlu]

To put the proper name on this thread: William Lame Craig.

Actually, his nickname is Low Bar Bill

This pretty much sums up good old 'Low bar Bill'.

[Angrboda]

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, his nickname is Low Bar Bill

This pretty much sums up good old 'Low bar Bill'.

In that case, he is all the more impressive for going under it without ever touching the bar.

[Nishant Xavier]

Hitchens also committed a blatant or elementary logical fallacy in the midst of the debate. Here are his words:

Hitchens: "There's no claim I know to make that "Atheism is True", because Atheism is the proposition that a certain proposition isn't True".

Let's say P is the proposition that "it is raining outside" and Q is the proposition that ["a certain proposition"] P isn't true, i.e. it is not raining outside.

P: "It is raining outside".
Q. "It is not raining outside".

Does it in any way follow that, because Q is the Proposition that P is not true, therefore Q cannot have a Truth Value itself? I mean, that's an elementary logical fallacy, a non sequitur. 

What really follows is that either P or Q must be true, they are mutually exclusive etc. Good reasons for P being true are good reasons Q is not (because one of them must be true), and so on.

Jesus Christ Himself, when it was necessary to establish to the Pharisees the Truth that Christ was the Son of God and a Divine King, and not a mere son of David or human king, as they thought, debated with the Pharisees to establish that Truth: "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? [Psa 110:1] If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He [just] his Son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore." (Mat 22)

Whether it's the Pro-Life issue, or the God question, or other such matters, Christians engage in debate and discussion on those subjects because saving Lives or important Truths are at stake. 

If someone after diligently considering all the arguments is not convinced, ok, that's his or her prerogative. All Christians would do is amicably disagree. That debate took place in a Christian University, IIRC, Biola. Yet no one harassed or hassled Hitchens in the slightest, just responded to his arguments. Respectful disagreement is important. 

Why are there debates in most countries before elections? Because a proper ideology based on Truth and Righteousness should be able to defend and explain itself to the public when facing challenging questions.

If one is a public spokesman for Atheism, and has written books attacking Almighty God, as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al did, then it is reasonable that Christians who are Professors or public speakers, like Craig and others are, are going to challenge that. Not only Craig, but others like Alvin Plantinga, J.P Moreland et al have done that. And if you want to challenge something in the Bible, or something about Christ, or something that Christian wrote, that's the place to do that also. Harris, Hitchens et al did do that with Craig. Dawkins didn't. But he did debate with lesser known Christian speakers. I'm sure there's a reason for that. Lol.

God Bless.

[Nay_Sayer]

Snipped for brevity

You're a silly failure turtle

Thoughts and prayers.

RAmen

[Silver]

You're confused.

It's:

P: is there a statement that makes atheism true?
Q: "god is real" is not a true statement

[Nay_Sayer]

You're confused.

It's:

P: is there a statement that makes atheism true?
Q: "god is real" is not a true statement

You're gonna need hand puppets for Xavier to understand.

[Astreja]

Hitchens also committed a blatant or elementary logical fallacy in the midst of the debate. Here are his words:

Hitchens: "There's no claim I know to make that "Atheism is True", because Atheism is the proposition that a certain proposition isn't True".

Atheism is a belief rather than a statement of knowledge.  If you say "I believe in God" and I say "I don't," we can both be correct because we are stating our own beliefs.  For me, atheism is true because I am accurately reporting my own perspective.

Things get muddy when you say "God exists" and I say "I don't believe you."  You are now making a knowledge claim, namely that your god does exist, while I continue to state my own belief.  My belief remains true for me, but your claim is indeterminate because you haven't yet demonstrated its truth value.

[Nishant Xavier]

Snipped for brevity

You're a silly failure turtle
[snipped for brevity]

According to whom? I'd say I've been fairly successful in life. I was born in a poor family. By the Grace of God, through education and hard work, I got into some of the best colleges on merit and today am an Investment Banker in a Senior Position earning a Great Salary. I succeeded against all odds, by the Grace of God, in spite of countless "naysayers" like yourself. If you want to contribute something positive to this thread on the God debate, you should do that instead of speaking about "failure turtle"s (whatever that means) and FSM stuff.

Tomato:

"P: is there a statement that makes atheism true?
Q: "god is real" is not a true statement"

Keep it simple.

P: God Exists, Theism is True.
Q. God does not Exist, Theism is not True.

The question is, does Q not have a Truth Value because it is a negation of P? The answer is, obviously not. In fact, if P has a Truth Value, then ~P (not P) also necessarily has a Truth Value. Hitchens has no clue what he's talking about. If P is true, Q is false. If P is false, Q is true. By the very fact that P has a Truth Value, it follows logically that not P, or Q, or the negation of P, also has a Truth Value, the opposite Truth Value. 

Wiki: "In logic and mathematics, a truth value, sometimes called a logical value, is a value indicating the relation of a proposition to truth, which in classical logic has only two possible values (true or false).[1][2]"

Regards,
Xavier.

[Anomalocaris]

You're a silly failure turtle
[snipped for brevity]

According to whom? I'd say I've been fairly successful in life. …….  Blah blah blah

You are a Christian,  how much more completely can a being supposedly equipped to think fail?